Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

My last two posts have focused on both the “ time of day ” that Jesus was crucified and the actual “ day ” of His crucifixion. In this post, I want to piggyback on some of my thoughts there and think here, about the religious leaders and two of their hesitancies: 1) Their fear of riots (Mk. 14.2) and, 2) Their fear of not being able to participate in Passover events (Jn. 18.28). It is my contention that if we can square these two passages, the things that I have said so far, become even clearer. Here are the two passages: Mk. 14.2 says: “For they said, ‘But not during the Feast or the crowds may riot.’” Jn. 18.28 says: “…But it was morning and they did not want to enter into the Praetorium in order that they did not become ceremonially unclean (for) they wanted to eat the Passover." In these two passages, the players are the same: the Jewish religious officials. While they have two concerns (mentioned above), these concerns focus on the same thing: Passover Week. Now, I have argue...

In study #76 of my “Studies in Mark” series, I explored some issues surrounding the “time” of Jesus’ crucifixion in the four Gospel accounts. In the main, I gave some thoughts on how time was viewed, understood and used in Mediterranean antiquity and how these factors should be borne in mind when reading the various NT accounts. In the end, I concluded that in the work titled “John” (and the same is true of Luke) the author’s are using temporal approximations—in more simple terms: they were saying “Jesus was crucified at about or around such and such time of day.” John says Jesus was crucified at about Noon while Mark says it was 9am. The fact is, John is clearly approximating when he uses the word “about” (again, Luke does the same). Mark does not offer a specific word that denotes approximation; at first glance he seems to be more specific. However, given the cultural norms of time-telling back then, any seemingly specific time that was given should still be taken lightly. To find o...

As many New Testament scholars have pointed out, those from the New Testament era and more specifically, the non-Roman Elite of the NT era, understood “time” differently. Bruce Malina, for instance, has repeatedly shown that while 21st century Americans are predominantly future-oriented people (e.g. retirement funds, savings accounts, planning for education, hoping to get married, waiting to have kids, etc.), those we read of in the NT were quite the opposite—these agricultural and usually lower class personages were present-minded folk. In fact, Malina has argued that no NT personage could have possibly had a future orientation similar to that of a 21st century American. For the sake of argument and belaboring, I will say here that this is a view I, for the most part, share (I say “most part” because I certainly have not done away with the “already, not yet” aspect so apparent in the NT documents). As Cadbury has pointed out, the NT word “hora” (English “hour”) is only attested to one...

Perhaps more than any other scholar, Jerome Neyrey has researched envy and its role within the Gospel of Mark. In a thought-provoking essay, Neyrey surveys Mark’s work with an eye towards elucidating the meaning of Mk. 10.15: “It was ‘out of envy’ (dia phthonon) that they handed Jesus over.” Of course, the “they” here refers to the religious leaders who had been plotting to kill Jesus since the early days of His ministry (Mk. 3.6) and repeatedly trying to trap Him in His words and actions throughout the entirety of His ministry so that such plans might come to fruition (e.g. Mk. 10.2, 11.32, 12.12, 12.14-5, 14.1-2, 14.1-11, etc. *basically all of chapters 11-14). Of course, envy was a serious matter and was even considered a vice in antiquity. Affiliated with the evil eye (Mk. 722), envy was a way to bring shame, harm, disaster, etc. on one’s opponents. Just as well, in a limited good culture where honor was a most precious commodity, when one gained honor, that meant others lost it. S...

The story of Jesus rebuking Peter has always been one of the most attention getting narratives of the Synoptics. Among commentators, one or two things are usually emphasized: 1) Peter rebukes Jesus’ “failure” mentality (that is, Peter believes that Jesus’ vision is too shortsighted), or 2) Jesus rebukes Peter for being possessed by or in-league with the devil, that is, satan. While other views exist (usually just a nuanced view of these two points), these are certainly the ones that dominate literature on Mark. It is my contention, though, that there is a better way to read and understand this story. A few posts ago, I argued that in chapter 8 of Mark’s work, Jesus is essentially taking stock of His ministry. He asks many question to gauge precisely where His disciples are and what they think about Him. He also wants to know what others think about Him. One of the questions Jesus asks is, “Who do people…and who do you, say that I am?” Peter replies, “You are the Messiah.” Certainly, Pe...